Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Do I mean what I say... or do I say what I mean...?

At the level of speech, this means that our thought - our intention-to-mean, what we want to say - is dependent on the process of its "expression": I discover what I want to say only by saying it. In today's cognitive sciences, this dependence of thought on the linguistic process of its articulation was most clearly pointed out by Daniel Dennett, who quotes Lincoln's famous line "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time," drawing attention to its logical ambiguity: does it mean that there are some people who can always be fooled, or that, on every occasion, someone or other is bound to be fooled? His point is that it is wrong to ask, "What did Lincoln really mean?" - in all probability, Lincoln himself was not aware of the ambiguity. He simply wanted to make a witty point, and the phrase "imposed itself on him" because "it sounded good." Here we have an exemplary case of how, when the subject has a vague intention-to-signify and is "looking for the right expression" (as we usually put it), the influence goes both ways: it is not only that, among the multitude of contenders, the best expression wins, but some expression might impose itself which changes more or less considerably the very intention-to-signify.

 

[SentinelSlain]

That's a long way of making an ultimately simple point.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's called argument.

 

[Dak]

An argument vs a blanket bashing of brown people and women.

I think it's a significant point and a well crafted argument.

 

[Dak]

 

[rms]

Zimmeran/Trayvon Debate

I know you think it's race-baiting, but this honestly has nothing to do with it. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may intensify the racial elements of the case, but they don't put them there. The whole notion of race-baiting is a right-wing reactionary effort to displace the issue. You must be able to see that.

I think there are racial elements, but they seem like they are being grasped onto as much as Fox News was doing it on the IRS and Benghazi scandals of the past. It's hard to decide, in my opinion, if Zimmerman was fueled by a anti-black opinion or of seeing an inner city youth in his gated white community. There are probably tons of statistics backing up the notion that blacks are predominantly found more than any other ethnic group in inner cities which adds another angle to this but I think that is a real aspect of this case.

But regardless of his motive, it was definitely wrong of him to follow Trayvon as he wasn't qualified to do that(maybe illegal?) but because he is stalking/following someone for whatever real reason, does that revoke him the right of self defense?

What people need to realize is that we come to a case like this always-already from a racial perspective. Once more people admit that to themselves, maybe we can begin to make progress. But no one wants to admit this. If Trayvon had survived, it would have been just another black youth who ruthlessly murdered an officer (of some form or other). Race needs to be an issue in this case because we need to consider how we're conditioned to respond racially before the incident even happened. Trying to convince yourself that it's all race-baiting is simply an effort to ignore the broader issue.

Well this is pretty tricky territory with the survivor scenario. Trayvon would have done it after the shot? Before the shot? I think we can safely say that Trayvon made the mistake of attacking Zimmerman in whatever way just because he thought he was a rapist/annoyed/wanted to act tough but realistically he could have gotten away, by just outrunning Zimmerman's fat ass or just getting out of that community.

I guess we can start here and see where this goes?

 

[Einherjar86]

Good points.

I think there are racial elements, but they seem like they are being grasped onto as much as Fox News was doing it on the IRS and Benghazi scandals of the past. It's hard to decide, in my opinion, if Zimmerman was fueled by a anti-black opinion or of seeing an inner city youth in his gated white community. There are probably tons of statistics backing up the notion that blacks are predominantly found more than any other ethnic group in inner cities which adds another angle to this but I think that is a real aspect of this case.

But regardless of his motive, it was definitely wrong of him to follow Trayvon as he wasn't qualified to do that(maybe illegal?) but because he is stalking/following someone for whatever real reason, does that revoke him the right of self defense?

I hear this argument quite a bit, but I actually don't think it's where the racial elements of case are to be found. At least, it isn't where I would locate them.

I don't think it matters whether or not Zimmerman had any racial sentiment at all at any point during the incident. The racial component doesn't begin and end with him. It actually becomes apparent in our conditioned reaction to the case from the very beginning; before it even happened, in fact. Zimmerman may not have felt any racial hostility at all.

Taking purely the facts of the case, we arrive at an indeterminate scenario: a young black man is dead from a gunshot, and a "white Latino" male has suffered non-life-threatening wounds to his head. All we know is that something took place between the two men, and one of them ended up shooting the other.

The case took this direction: either Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood (i.e. it was unwarranted, he was not defending himself); or he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense. The jury ruled in favor of the latter, since no other verification could be arrived at. The racial element is inherent in the very conceptualization of the case.

Even saying that Zimmerman killed Martin to defend himself conjures an ages-old stereotype: that the white had to be defending himself against the violent black. Zimmerman's self-defense precludes Martin from engaging in self-defense and transforms him into a raving lunatic. For all we know, Martin could have been defending himself against Zimmerman - a strange, imposing stalker who may have been infringing on Martin's privacy - and eventually gained the upper hand, at which point Zimmerman was then defending himself against Martin. But the final perception of the scenario paints a very definitive and racial picture: the white being attacked by the black.

As much as we may want to try, we can't shed this perception of its racial elements. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying Zimmerman had to be found guilty; I'm suggesting that discussions of the case need to be formed in a different way. The racism emerges in the very way that we frame our perception of it.

Well this is pretty tricky territory with the survivor scenario. Trayvon would have done it after the shot? Before the shot? I think we can safely say that Trayvon made the mistake of attacking Zimmerman in whatever way just because he thought he was a rapist/annoyed/wanted to act tough but realistically he could have gotten away, by just outrunning Zimmerman's fat ass or just getting out of that community.

I guess we can start here and see where this goes?

I think it's presumptuous to assume that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. For all we know, Zimmerman caught up with Trayvon and accosted him first, prompting Martin to react, or (maybe) overreact. But can you blame him; a young man walking late at night being followed by a stranger?

All we have is Zimmerman's account. At some point, yes, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman; but this doesn't mean that he was on top of him to begin with. And perhaps, at that point, he saw the gun and became frightened, and began beating Zimmerman's head because he feared he was going to be shot.

 

[rms]

Taking purely the facts of the case, we arrive at an indeterminate scenario: a young black man is dead from a gunshot, and a "white Latino" male has suffered non-life-threatening wounds to his head. All we know is that something took place between the two men, and one of them ended up shooting the other.

To be fair, Zimmerman would have no idea how these wounds would impact him or when they would stop(if Martin would)--I don't think anyone in Zimmerman's position at that time wouldn't have gained the upper hand by a kick in the nuts, a knife, a gun, a rock etc..

Even saying that Zimmerman killed Martin to defend himself conjures an ages-old stereotype: that the white had to be defending himself against the violent black. Zimmerman's self-defense precludes Martin from engaging in self-defense and transforms him into a raving lunatic. For all we know, Martin could have been defending himself against Zimmerman - a strange, imposing stalker who may have been infringing on Martin's privacy - and eventually gained the upper hand, at which point Zimmerman was then defending himself against Martin. But the final perception of the scenario paints a very definitive and racial picture: the white being attacked by the black.

Man this seems like a stretch. Why isn't the stereotype just one guy getting beat up and in a moment of panic he raises the stakes of the fight and ends up killing/seriously hurting the other guy?

I also thought it was proven that Martin didn't have any kind of damage done to him to show that Zimmerman was assaulting him or first? It was probably more of Zimmerman being an asshole like get off our property and fuck you cracker and then shit hit the fan--at least that is how I sort of perceive what happened

As much as we may want to try, we can't shed this perception of its racial elements. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying Zimmerman had to be found guilty; I'm suggesting that discussions of the case need to be formed in a different way. The racism emerges in the very way that we frame our perception of it.

Well yeah, nothing wrong with being aware of social issues in America, hopefully for the right reasons and not the kind of reasons that are coming out now.

I think it's presumptuous to assume that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. For all we know, Zimmerman caught up with Trayvon and accosted him first, prompting Martin to react, or (maybe) overreact. But can you blame him; a young man walking late at night being followed by a stranger?

Well I kind of can, but i'm not a hard-ass. If I thought I was being stalked by someone and I didn't have a knife or anything more dangerous I wouldn't stop to confront the guy, because what if?

All we have is Zimmerman's account. At some point, yes, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman; but this doesn't mean that he was on top of him to begin with. And perhaps, at that point, he saw the gun and became frightened, and began beating Zimmerman's head because he feared he was going to be shot.

Well legally obviously proves a reasonable doubt but I am pretty confident there was no proof that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the fight, or am I wrong?

 

[Einherjar86]

To be fair, Zimmerman would have no idea how these wounds would impact him or when they would stop(if Martin would)--I don't think anyone in Zimmerman's position at that time wouldn't have gained the upper hand by a kick in the nuts, a knife, a gun, a rock etc..

Totally true, and I'm not saying he shouldn't have fired his gun. Again, I don't think that Zimmerman needs to be found guilty in order to rectify the racism that I'm arguing is present. I'm just saying that our view of the scenario is, prior to even coming to the specific case of Zimmerman and Martin, already coded in racial tones.

Man this seems like a stretch. Why isn't the stereotype just one guy getting beat up and in a moment of panic he raises the stakes of the fight and ends up killing/seriously hurting the other guy?

Again, I'm just saying that the implausibility of the scenario derives not from its empirical unlikelihood, but from the racial perspective with which we view the incident.

Furthermore, we have to consider that the racial tones go both ways; that is, most blacks will view this case in undeniably racial tones. But for blacks, their perspective is fundamentally constituted by the history of racial discrimination in this country. This is why Obama addressed the nation on this point, in my opinion; he was trying to communicate how differently blacks approach this scenario as opposed to whites. Saying that they project race into it ignores the deep racial impact that these kinds of incidents have on black people. They can't just "get over it."

I also thought it was proven that Martin didn't have any kind of damage done to him to show that Zimmerman was assaulting him or first? It was probably more of Zimmerman being an asshole like get off our property and fuck you cracker and then shit hit the fan--at least that is how I sort of perceive what happened

I have no idea. But a lack of wounds doesn't mean that Zimmerman didn't initially make a threatening gesture. Who knows, maybe he reached for his gun and Trayvon reacted...

Well I kind of can, but i'm not a hard-ass. If I thought I was being stalked by someone and I didn't have a knife or anything more dangerous I wouldn't stop to confront the guy, because what if?

I'm talking about if Zimmerman accosted Martin, meaning that he caught up with him and engaged him, even if it wasn't physically. Martin may have interpreted some of Zimmerman's actions as reaching for his sidearm, which he very well may have been doing.

Well legally obviously proves a reasonable doubt but I am pretty confident there was no proof that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the fight, or am I wrong?

This is what I mean though. We take the empirical "proof" of the case to preclude any possibility that Martin was defending himself. We like to think that such a perspective of the incident isn't racial, but it unfortunately is. We need to consider that our view of what occurred, even though supported by evidence, corresponds with a negative racial stereotype.

 

[Einherjar86]

On another note, this is pretty funny. For those unfamiliar with Searle, he's a big name in American analytic philosophy, and very influential (his concept of the "Chinese room" is a popular thought experiment). Furthermore, Foucault is often cited as one of the Continental philosophers who actually finds respect and even popularity among American philosophers. This little anecdote from Searle is a nice commentary on the relationship between the two, and how American often views Europe (or at least France):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvwhEIhv3N0&feature=youtu.be

 

[rms]

I think I understand you're main point so not going to keep requoting, even though this page is stretched to hell.

Would you go so far as to say that NBC made those deliberate mistakes (the picture of Martin and the 911 alteration) to try and get all people's to be on a black victim's side? Because I think what you are saying is that everyone already assumed Martin was a shitty person and that Zimmerman was good, right?

If that is true, I mean there is really no argument. It is different for black people and white people, it is different for inner city kids versus gated neighborhood kids..just the way it is and to say that we don't judge every situation on past experiences/hearsay--i'm sure everyone had their thoughts about Casey Anthony and the Arizona girl but no one was accused of being a feminist, no?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Dak]

Golden comedy on political language.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think I understand you're main point so not going to keep requoting, even though this page is stretched to hell.

Would you go so far as to say that NBC made those deliberate mistakes (the picture of Martin and the 911 alteration) to try and get all people's to be on a black victim's side? Because I think what you are saying is that everyone already assumed Martin was a shitty person and that Zimmerman was good, right?

If that is true, I mean there is really no argument. It is different for black people and white people, it is different for inner city kids versus gated neighborhood kids..just the way it is and to say that we don't judge every situation on past experiences/hearsay--i'm sure everyone had their thoughts about Casey Anthony and the Arizona girl but no one was accused of being a feminist, no?

No worries about quoting, this thread is used to it.

I don't mean to insinuate that you're wrong, because you're not; media portrayal is certainly a part of it, but it's not the whole issue. Media portrayal, especially on CNN and MSNBC, leaned heavily in favor of Martin; but I'm interested in how even though certain media outlets portrayed Martin favorably, the entire framing of the case is still racial. Regardless of how any news outlet captures the events, the situation - Zimmerman guilty of shooting a black youth - conjures the stereotypical image of a white man fighting off a violent black man.

Racism doesn't need to be traced to individual actors. It's present in the symbolism of our culture. Jackson and Sharpton reiterating its presence is merely redundancy. Once the case becomes: "either Zimmerman fired in self-defense or he murdered Trayvon in cold blood," we're forced to view the case in strikingly black and white tones.

If there was a genuine struggle, then both parties will inevitably try and defend themselves. Our need to impart blame - and the racial frame in which we perceive the events - precludes us from seeing the whole picture. In the case, as it's being shown to us, even by news outlets that try to make Martin look innocent, his ability to defend himself gets obscured. It forces us to see him as either: a) a sweet and innocent baby boy, or b) a violent aggressor.

Why couldn't Martin just have been a normal young man who, upon realizing that Zimmerman was following him: tried to hide, was discovered by Zimmerman, exchanged heated words (as most people would likely do), perceived Zimmerman's actions as reaching for a sidearm, and defended himself against what he perceived as a potentially life-threatening act.

The racial lens through which the case is presented doesn't allow us to perceive the actors involved on equal ground.

 

[Dak]

I think media displays the issue for it's audience in that way, forcing it to be conceived in those limited terms. But dividing people sells better than calmness and rationality. I think racism is about as latent as anything else, broadly speaking. But that doesn't mean we do approach everything always-already from a racial point of view. It just means that we could, in the same way I often approach many things in terms of the state vs us. Substitute the "State" for "Jews" or "Blacks" or "Chinks" or whatever and you have a similar dynamic for the "racist". It's merely correct or incorrect (and we would say incorrect in terms of race). This extra hysteria over the issue is counterproductive and incorrect.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree that the media contributes to racism, but it doesn't create it. The excess hysteria isn't counterproductive if it forces us to actually consider the issue.

EDIT:

This is a tad bit creepy. Follow the link to see the quotes from Watts's original (fictional) text.

So Lever et al have found something in the rocks, deep below the Pacific seabed [...] It eats inorganics, notably sulfur—

—it’s an anaerobe—

—and they found it on the Juan de Fuca Ridge — less than 200km, in fact, from where Starfish places Beebe Station. There's speculation that life itself got started down there, that this bug beneath the seabed could be not only the most ancient form of life on the planet but might also comprise the planet's biggest ecosystem. That system would, however, be very much simpler than the sort we're used to despoiling way up here [...]

Oh: and they're bringing it back.
They haven't named it yet. I know what I'd call it.
Let's just hope the parallels stop there.

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?paged=3

 

[Dak]

But I don't see where it does. Society at large is not allowed to "consider the issue" outside of the narrowly defined and divided parameters.

 

[Einherjar86]

They're being forced to acknowledge a racial component and argue over it. The debates that have sprung up on the news and in households over whether or not the Zimmerman case is racially inflected testify to the fact that it's forcing people to talk about it. It doesn't matter if the conservatives relentlessly refuse to accept it. At least it's shoving it in our face.

That's ignoring the negative qualities of the press.

 

[rms]

If there was a genuine struggle, then both parties will inevitably try and defend themselves. Our need to impart blame - and the racial frame in which we perceive the events - precludes us from seeing the whole picture. In the case, as it's being shown to us, even by news outlets that try to make Martin look innocent, his ability to defend himself gets obscured. It forces us to see him as either: a) a sweet and innocent baby boy, or b) a violent aggressor.

Why couldn't Martin just have been a normal young man who, upon realizing that Zimmerman was following him: tried to hide, was discovered by Zimmerman, exchanged heated words (as most people would likely do), perceived Zimmerman's actions as reaching for a sidearm, and defended himself against what he perceived as a potentially life-threatening act.

The racial lens through which the case is presented doesn't allow us to perceive the actors involved on equal ground.

I guess that's totally possible, but without any kind of witnesses and proof that scenario can't be presented, and we have to go on a legality of things, no? So it kind of seems irrelevant--which is sad when it comes to a life.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're right, and it is unfortunate; but if I might do a bit of academic posturing here (which I know some people don't like)...

Even though all the evidence and testimony points toward the scenario that you're describing (and I agree that it does), this doesn't change the fact that it still fits a traditional racial stereotype. Even though the actions may be psychologically non-racial - that is, Zimmerman felt no racial hostility at all in shooting Martin but was merely defending himself - it still appears as a racially charged image.

Black people view this image very differently than white people do, on average. This doesn't mean that blacks are constitutively different than whites, or anything of the sort; it means that their historical circumstances have conditioned them to respond to this image in a certain way. When we, as whites, try to gloss over the issue by insisting that no racial bias is present in the image, we do a disfavor to blacks who perceive it that way. We insinuate that their perspective is flawed.

Now, before someone criticizes me for being a relativist, let me be very clear: I'm not saying that both perspectives are correct or that Zimmerman needs to be re-tried and found guilty. This won't assuage anyone or clarify the issue. I'm not trying to accuse Zimmerman of being racist or trying to suggest that anyone in particular is racist and needs to be found guilty of anything. I'm merely suggesting that racism pervades our culture down to our very language and history of our institutions, and that the symbolic structures of our culture (i.e. the court systems, legal systems, law enforcement, etc.) cannot escape this fact.

The correct response shouldn't be to claim that the case isn't racist at all and that race-baiting is responsible for the majority of racial hostility experienced; this does nothing but perpetuate the problem. What we need to do is accept that the case is, in fact, saturated in racial overtones and tendencies. We need to admit this: "Yes, in fact, the Zimmerman case is racist, heavily racist in fact."

The majority of the West (I'm speaking specifically of America) has never owned up to its racism. Instead, it wants to sweep it under the rug.